Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search

Messages from 101000

Article: 101000
Subject: Xilinx EDK 8.1 DDR controller behavior
From: "Antti" <Antti.Lukats@xilant.com>
Date: 24 Apr 2006 00:09:24 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi

does anyone know what should happen on read access to DDR
memory space when external connections to DDR memory
are not correct? I am troubleshooting a custom board and
what I see is that OPB DDR controller makes total OPB bus
freeze on first DDR read access. ToutSup=1 and then nothing
happens. In the datasheet DQS strobe is going to WREN of
read fifo so I could think a missing DQS from external chip could
cause bus freeze, but I am not really sure as it is not described
in the datasheet (eg what should happen on missing DQS).

I have tried all DDR controllers from EDK 8.1
PLB_DDR
OPB_DDR
OPB_MCH_DDR
and all seem to have similar freeze behaviour
the DCMs all work (tested) and the EDK system
also works - well until first read to DDR space

any helpful hints?

Antti


Article: 101001
Subject: Re: Virtex-4 Gigabit Ethernet design
From: "David Quiñones" <david.quinones@imagsa.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 00:17:03 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hello Guru

The FIFOs can be expanded, isn't it? There's a lot of resources availables to do this. And I need a very high transmisión speed and the results showed in the xapp807 are reception bandwith.

I'm watching a webcast at www.techonline.com about to learn to use the ultracontroller-II with the TEMAC. I will inform about the evaluation of the UCII + TEMAC.

Best regards boys

Article: 101002
Subject: regarding memories using megafunction wizard(altera)
From: "bachimanchi@gmail.com" <bachimanchi@gmail.com>
Date: 24 Apr 2006 00:28:56 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi all,
i am currently working on altera FPGAs,when i was trying to generate a
memory using megafunction wizard,in the options it is registering both
inputs and outputs of the memory,and i have the option of
not-regestering the output.But as the input is registered when i use
the component it is not giving the expected value.Can anyone tell me
how to disable the option of not registering he inputs.

waiting for reply,

Thank you,


Regards
Ramakrishna


Article: 101003
Subject: Re: Synthesizer is creating unwanted global resources
From: "vssumesh" <vssumesh_asic@yahoo.com>
Date: 24 Apr 2006 02:10:09 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Mine is actually a demux. A 8 bit data goes to any of the 256
locations. Thus a statement like below will create latch.
reg [256*8-1:0] out;
out[ind*8+7:ind*8] = in;
this can be converted to FFs by following statement

always@ (posedge  clk4x)
out1[ind1*8+7:ind1*8] = in1;

clk4x because to reduce size i am using TD multiplexing. The output
goes to another FF which latches on the +ve edge of the clk. so how
this can be possible. I think i have to phase shift the clk4x advance
it wrt to the clk by a small amount. These are my problems in using
FFs.

I tried the FF type (not given important to functionality). But found
that that design is also not routing. The LUT is 88% FF is 33% Slice is
96%. Now only 20 or less latches in the design ( most of then are part
of the complicated case statements). If that too is also a problem will
avoid that.
regards
Sumesh V S


Article: 101004
Subject: Re: Virtex-4 Gigabit Ethernet design
From: "David Quiñones" <david.quinones@imagsa.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 02:19:43 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi

It's no bad the webcast at www.techonline.com. There is a presentation with voice and you can save it in pdf format and the transcription of the voice too.

We will follow informing...

Article: 101005
Subject: Re: CAM, TCAM in Stratix
From: "freechip" <freechip@hotmail.fr>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:47:29 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
>"freechip" <freechip@hotmail.fr> wrote in message 
>news:VqSdnSn0Kpv2YtXZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
>>
>> Hi,
>> I am working on a 10 Gb Ethernet project (deep packet inspection) and
need
>> to implement CAM in my FPGA. I am using a Stratix GX and I don't think
I
>> can use CAM (internal or external) in the stratix GX Dev Board.
>>
>> Let me know your thoughts about that.
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>
>How big a (Ternary?)CAM do you need? 
>
>

Hi,
I don't yet. 
Do you think it is possible with Altera products?
Have a good day.



Article: 101006
Subject: Re: regarding memories using megafunction wizard(altera)
From: "ALuPin@web.de" <ALuPin@web.de>
Date: 24 Apr 2006 03:40:26 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Ramakrishna,

as far as I know it is not possible to
disable the input registration.

Rgds
Andr=E9


Article: 101007
Subject: Re: CAM, TCAM in Stratix
From: "ALuPin@web.de" <ALuPin@web.de>
Date: 24 Apr 2006 03:43:20 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi freechip,

yes I think it is possible to build a CAM
around Altera RAM blocks.

How big is the CAM ? After how many clock cycles
do you need a hit ?

Rgds
Andr=E9


Article: 101008
Subject: Re: CAM, TCAM in Stratix
From: "freechip" <freechip@hotmail.fr>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 06:54:36 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
>Hi freechip,
>
>yes I think it is possible to build a CAM
>around Altera RAM blocks.
>
>How big is the CAM ? After how many clock cycles
>do you need a hit ?
>
>Rgds
>Andr=E9
>
>

Hi Andr,
Actually, I am in the research phase and I really don't know how big is
the cam. I just wanted to know, to compare to Xilinx Family, if it was
poosible to use cam with Altera product. For my project (deep packet
inspection), the use of the cam is necessary.
If you can tell me how can a build a cam around Altera RAM block (and the
max. of the cam without my answers to your questions), I will be very
pleased.

Thanks.



Article: 101009
Subject: comp.arch.reconfig
From: "Robin Bruce" <robin.bruce@gmail.com>
Date: 24 Apr 2006 05:40:18 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I'd like to canvass opinion here. I'm sure opinions will vary greatly.
The question is:
Is is time to create a new group devoted entirely to general-purpose
reconfigurable computing.

In the usenet space, comp.arch.fpga is the best location for
discussions related to "reconfigurable computing". I am well aware that
mostly any use of an FPGA could be termed "reconfigurable computing"
but I use the term here to describe attempts to create general-purpose
computers based around reconfigurable logic. I am aware that this was
the original intention of the comp.arch.fpga group. Times have changed
however, the majority of FPGAs are destined for uses such as DSP and
not as reconfigurable computing processing units.

I'm quite sure that many people will state that there is room enough
for both on this board and that the two aren't that far removed but I'm
not so sure. Threads have a tendancy to migrate away from
reconfigurable computing as I understand it.

The following post from 1997 seems relevant to this discussion:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.arch.fpga/browse_thread/thread/9febb2c8691cba64/801c034d1eb563ac?lnk=st&q=%22reconfigurable+computing%22&rnum=5#801c034d1eb563ac

So, who here would be interested in creating a reconfigurable computing
only group? Incidentally, one exists already at openfpga.org:

http://www.osc.edu/forums/w-agora/index.php?bn=oscgeneral_openfpga

It's been quiet so far but I think it just needs a push to get started.
It may however be too far off the beaten track to ever see much action.

Thanks,

Robin


Article: 101010
Subject: Re: CAM, TCAM in Stratix
From: John_H <johnhandwork@mail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:13:52 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
>>How big a (Ternary?)CAM do you need? 
>>
>>
freechip wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I don't yet. 
> Do you think it is possible with Altera products?
> Have a good day.

It's possible to build teeny, tiny CAMs.  The information Austin pointed 
out gives you an idea of what you can accomplish with FPGA resources 
that can apply to all FPGAs, not just Xilinx.

If you need a few entries, you might be okay.  If you need small 
entries, you may be able to do many more.

Read that documentation and you'll get a feel for the limits you're 
faced with.

Personally, I'd love a 4kx20 CAM but I know there's no way to do it in 
an FPGA>

Article: 101011
Subject: Re: Reliability CPLD/FPGA vs Microcontroller
From: "radarman" <jshamlet@gmail.com>
Date: 24 Apr 2006 06:23:28 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Trust me, it is more complicated than that, but there are plenty of
both legit and questionable reasons for going with external buffers.

For one, we are typically driving very long cable harnesses or large
backplanes with lots of fan-out. While an FPGA pin might be able to do
it, we are guaranteed performance with the external parts. There is
also the fact that a technician can reasonably replace, or probe, a
buffer chip - while a BGA repair requires a trip back to the factory.
Then, there is debug and integration. Our integration and test cycles
are already too short to allow for a two-week trip back to the factory
for rework.

Also, even at just 5%, the buffers are cheaper.


Article: 101012
Subject: Xilinx ISE Project Navigator bug
From: "Roger Bourne" <rover8898@hotmail.com>
Date: 24 Apr 2006 06:32:58 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hello all,

I am running Xilinx ISE Project Navigator 8.1.03i.
There seems to be an intermittent "bug"/"problem" that keeps on
occuring.
About, once/~hour the program will crash (and lock the project files.
this is not a problem since the project offers the option to unlock the
files upon openning the project...).
However It does get very annoying.
Usually it crashes when I am employing schematic editor.

Also, this migth be unrelated to the above problem, but after several
days/weeks of working on the same project, a new project has to be
reconstructed from the original project's source files for the program
just freezes up after the prompt of the [do you want to unlock the
project?] (P.S When the program hangs, the task manager indicates that
the _pn process eats anywhere from 88MB to 156MB -seems like a little
too much)

Has anyone else experienced this ?

P.S I am running Win 2000, 238MB of RAM, 1.6GHz, P4

Please advise
-Roger


Article: 101013
Subject: Re: Xilinx DCI resistor placement guidelines
From: "Andy" <jonesandy@comcast.net>
Date: 24 Apr 2006 07:00:53 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
If I'm not mistaken, you have the option of determining whether the
"calibration" works once at configuration, or continuously during/after
configuration.  Continuous calibration compensates for
temperature/voltage variances during operation, but other than that, it
has no real advantages, and if the board is quieter at configuration,
it might be helpful to select calibration at config only. IIRC,
one-time calibration uses less power too.

If the calibration process is reasonably slow, is it possible to use a
cap in parallel with the DCI resistor to help lower the AC impedance,
and therefore reduce noise? (assuming noise was an issue in the first
place)

In any case, I would not place DCI resistors close to the FPGA at the
expense of bypass cap placement near the FPGA.

Andy


Article: 101014
Subject: Re: Xilinx ISE Project Navigator bug
From: "Mike Treseler" <mike_treseler@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 07:21:44 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Roger Bourne wrote:

> I am running Xilinx ISE Project Navigator 8.1.03i.
> Usually it crashes when I am employing schematic editor.
> Please advise

Consider entering your design and testbench
with a good text editor using an HDL.
Check the code with modelsim.
Use ISE to view RTL and run place+route.

          -- Mike Treseler

Article: 101015
Subject: Re: Xilinx DCI resistor placement guidelines
From: Austin Lesea <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 07:30:23 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Andy,

Do not place a cap in parallel with the DCI resistor.

If you do not need continuous calibration, then by setting it to 
calibrate once, you would need not be concerned about any noise.

Austin


Andy wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, you have the option of determining whether the
> "calibration" works once at configuration, or continuously during/after
> configuration.  Continuous calibration compensates for
> temperature/voltage variances during operation, but other than that, it
> has no real advantages, and if the board is quieter at configuration,
> it might be helpful to select calibration at config only. IIRC,
> one-time calibration uses less power too.
> 
> If the calibration process is reasonably slow, is it possible to use a
> cap in parallel with the DCI resistor to help lower the AC impedance,
> and therefore reduce noise? (assuming noise was an issue in the first
> place)
> 
> In any case, I would not place DCI resistors close to the FPGA at the
> expense of bypass cap placement near the FPGA.
> 
> Andy
> 

Article: 101016
Subject: ISE 8.1 Sub module Synthesis
From: Eli Hughes <emh203@psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:58:46 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hello:

I ran into an issue (which may be a 'feature') in version 8.1 of ISE. 
When I have a simple verilog project with a top level module, I can no 
longer right click on one of the sub verilog modules for synthesis. In 
previous versions (7.1, etc) I could right click on any of the sub 
modules and syntehsize them indivdually.  In 8.1 the only processes I 
have for a submodule are to check syntax, generate schematic symbol and 
view instantiation template.


This is a real annoyance as it is nice to add submodules to my project 
to synthesize/simulate them indivually before integrating them into my 
top level module.  If there a way to turn this 'feature' off?

-Eli

Article: 101017
Subject: Re: ISE 8.1 Sub module Synthesis
From: Zara <yozara@terra.es>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:29:34 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:58:46 -0400, Eli Hughes <emh203@psu.edu> wrote:

>Hello:
>
>I ran into an issue (which may be a 'feature') in version 8.1 of ISE. 
>When I have a simple verilog project with a top level module, I can no 
>longer right click on one of the sub verilog modules for synthesis. In 
>previous versions (7.1, etc) I could right click on any of the sub 
>modules and syntehsize them indivdually.  In 8.1 the only processes I 
>have for a submodule are to check syntax, generate schematic symbol and 
>view instantiation template.
>
>
>This is a real annoyance as it is nice to add submodules to my project 
>to synthesize/simulate them indivually before integrating them into my 
>top level module.  If there a way to turn this 'feature' off?
>
>-Eli


I don't know if it will work in verilgo, but I soppes it will. It
works on VHDL. Right click on source node , "Select as Top Module". Do
remember to reselect original Top module when done.

I should classify it a s a real feature, because you can bypass it
when needed, but you save time when double clicking on Synthesis with
the wrong node selected.

Best regards,

Zara

Article: 101018
Subject: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...
From: "rickman" <spamgoeshere4@yahoo.com>
Date: 24 Apr 2006 09:27:02 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I still have not completely figured out the pull up resistors on the
Spartan 3 chips.  It would appear that the data sheet has never been
thoroughly reviewed for omissions and errors.  Some of the information
that should be clearly indicated in any number of places is missing
and/or misleading.

"A Low logic level on HSWAP_EN activates the pull-up resistors on all
I/Os during configuration."  Does this include the dedicated
configuration signals?  How about the dual purpose configuration pins?
Or is it just the User IO?

I found this sentance to be especially unenlightening...

"The Dedicated configuration pins (CCLK, DONE, PROG_B, M2, M1, M0,
HSWAP_EN) and the JTAG pins (TDI, TMS, TCK, and TDO) always have a
pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN during configuration, regardless of the
value on the HSWAP_EN pin."

What does a "pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN" mean???  Why would TDO have
(or need) a pull up to any value since it is a full time output?

Why does Xilinx make it so hard to get the all important details on a
part that has been in full production for so long?  They just updated
the Spartan 3 data sheet this month!  Why wasn't the information that
they know is lacking included?  I say they know info is lacking because
you can find it in an answer record if you know to look for it.

I may put up a web page detailing all the short comings in the Spartan
3 devices and documentation.


Article: 101019
Subject: Re: Xilinx EDK 8.1 DDR controller behavior
From: "John" <placename@remove_fpga_people.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:54:42 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Antti

When you get a timeout the OPB bus master should release the bus removing 
"SELECT" and other signals from active to their inactive state of all "0"s. 
I'm guessing the DDR module isn't passing back the XFERACK as expected.

If you have done this manually check the timeout signals are wired into the 
array correctly.

John Adair
Enterpoint Ltd. - Home of Broaddown2. The Ultimate Spartan3 Development 
Board.
http://www.enterpoint.co.uk


"Antti" <Antti.Lukats@xilant.com> wrote in message 
news:1145862564.498508.148690@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
>
> does anyone know what should happen on read access to DDR
> memory space when external connections to DDR memory
> are not correct? I am troubleshooting a custom board and
> what I see is that OPB DDR controller makes total OPB bus
> freeze on first DDR read access. ToutSup=1 and then nothing
> happens. In the datasheet DQS strobe is going to WREN of
> read fifo so I could think a missing DQS from external chip could
> cause bus freeze, but I am not really sure as it is not described
> in the datasheet (eg what should happen on missing DQS).
>
> I have tried all DDR controllers from EDK 8.1
> PLB_DDR
> OPB_DDR
> OPB_MCH_DDR
> and all seem to have similar freeze behaviour
> the DCMs all work (tested) and the EDK system
> also works - well until first read to DDR space
>
> any helpful hints?
>
> Antti
> 



Article: 101020
Subject: Re: Xilinx EDK 8.1 DDR controller behavior
From: Sylvain Munaut <tnt-at-246tNt-dot-com@youknowwhattodo.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:05:35 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Antti wrote:
> Hi
> 
> does anyone know what should happen on read access to DDR
> memory space when external connections to DDR memory
> are not correct? I am troubleshooting a custom board and
> what I see is that OPB DDR controller makes total OPB bus
> freeze on first DDR read access. ToutSup=1 and then nothing
> happens. In the datasheet DQS strobe is going to WREN of
> read fifo so I could think a missing DQS from external chip could
> cause bus freeze, but I am not really sure as it is not described
> in the datasheet (eg what should happen on missing DQS).

It freeze ... ie, never acks the transfer.

We use the ddr controller from EDK (without any ipic/ipif, just the
bare controller that's common to plb_ddr, opb_ddr & co) and
if the phase shift of the second dcm is off, it never acks and
thus freeze.


	Sylvain

Article: 101021
Subject: Re: Spartan 3 documentation confusing...
From: Austin Lesea <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:06:27 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Rick,

Why not just email all of this to Steve Knapp directly?  Or me or Peter 
for Virtex parts?

Seems that if you'd like to help us by pointing out anything confusing 
or inconsistent, you could get it to the right party in one step.

I agree with you that answers should be scrubbed for any update to a 
document.  It is the little things that drive us all crazy.

Austin


rickman wrote:
> I still have not completely figured out the pull up resistors on the
> Spartan 3 chips.  It would appear that the data sheet has never been
> thoroughly reviewed for omissions and errors.  Some of the information
> that should be clearly indicated in any number of places is missing
> and/or misleading.
> 
> "A Low logic level on HSWAP_EN activates the pull-up resistors on all
> I/Os during configuration."  Does this include the dedicated
> configuration signals?  How about the dual purpose configuration pins?
> Or is it just the User IO?
> 
> I found this sentance to be especially unenlightening...
> 
> "The Dedicated configuration pins (CCLK, DONE, PROG_B, M2, M1, M0,
> HSWAP_EN) and the JTAG pins (TDI, TMS, TCK, and TDO) always have a
> pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN during configuration, regardless of the
> value on the HSWAP_EN pin."
> 
> What does a "pull-up resistor to HSWAP_EN" mean???  Why would TDO have
> (or need) a pull up to any value since it is a full time output?
> 
> Why does Xilinx make it so hard to get the all important details on a
> part that has been in full production for so long?  They just updated
> the Spartan 3 data sheet this month!  Why wasn't the information that
> they know is lacking included?  I say they know info is lacking because
> you can find it in an answer record if you know to look for it.
> 
> I may put up a web page detailing all the short comings in the Spartan
> 3 devices and documentation.
> 

Article: 101022
Subject: Re: How to avoid this waring in ISE 8.1?
From: "Dave Pollum" <vze24h5m@verizon.net>
Date: 24 Apr 2006 10:08:46 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Devlin wrote:
> When I complied any project with ISE 8.1 webpack with SP3, I got
> warnings like below:
>
> WARNING:ProjectMgmt - "G:/test/watchver/stopwatch_map.ngm" line 0
> duplicate design unit: 'Module|stopwatch'
> WARNING:ProjectMgmt - "G:/test/watchver/stopwatch.ngc" line 0 duplicate
> design unit: 'Module|stopwatch'
>
> Does anyone know what does it mean? or how can I avoid this?
> thanks a lot.

You're not alone.  I get this warning, too.  And I don't know what it
means or how to avoid it either!
-Dave Pollum


Article: 101023
Subject: Re: CAM, TCAM in Stratix
From: Mike Treseler <mike_treseler@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:54:45 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
John_H wrote:

> It's possible to build teeny, tiny CAMs.  The information Austin pointed 
> out gives you an idea of what you can accomplish with FPGA resources 
> that can apply to all FPGAs, not just Xilinx.
> 
> If you need a few entries, you might be okay.  If you need small 
> entries, you may be able to do many more.

However, if you plan decode 32 bit or 128 bit IP addresses,
an FPGA solution will likely cost just as much and not
work quite as well as a real CAM.

   -- Mike Treseler

Article: 101024
Subject: Re: comp.arch.reconfig
From: Mike Treseler <mike_treseler@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:07:41 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Robin Bruce wrote:
> I'd like to canvass opinion here. I'm sure opinions will vary greatly.
> The question is:
> Is is time to create a new group devoted entirely to general-purpose
> reconfigurable computing.

When this newsgroup is overloaded with
postings regarding reconfigurable computing,
such a new group might be indicated.

    -- Mike Treseler



Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search